Travis Walton - September 21, 2014

[Constance]

continuing to your post:

If you put your self out in the public eye, whether politically or in the realm of celebrity, the same legal protections that protect private individuals are over with. That threshold becomes lower and lower as the internet allows so many to access the public realm,

why shouldn't identifiable persons spreading abuse and slander on the internet -- thereby accessing the public realm to damage others -- lose their protection as 'private individuals'? It makes no civil or ethical sense to me.

 

[AlienEsq]

Yes, I do think Walton gave short shrift to the lie detector tests, but understand it's not a foolproof technology regardless. As to money, I haven't a clue. Very few people getting involved in this field make large amounts of money. When he got paid for what he did in public appearances and in writing a book and selling movie rights, that's fine. If he altered his story or used it to somehow exploit people to get money, not so fine.

Consider, though, that among the most respected UFO researchers, the Walton case is taken seriously.

I was not suggesting that his bypass of the lie detector issue makes his story less credible, I only wish he would have addressed it. Lie detector tests are not infallible and neither are humans.

I still agree with you, it's a very credible story.

By the way, thanks for asking my question. It was great to hear Travis' response and I did not think Chris' presentation of my question was biased in any way.

 

[Chris Talbert]

The courts don't waste their time with battles between Rosy O'Donnel and Donald Trump. The courts are stuffed with other stuff, namely class action law suits, patent/copyright infringement, and most importantly the drug war.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Ah yes the drug war.

 

[AlienEsq]

Defamation cases are very difficult to prove, especially if there is any semblance of Truth behind the defamatory statement or the underlying factual isue is difficult to prove (i.e. extraterrestrial contact). While I have never had a defamation case myself, several of my Colleagues have and each one has faced their fair share of evidentiary hurdles.

 

[Constance]

The courts don't waste their time with battles between Rosy O'Donnel and Donald Trump. The courts are stuffed with other stuff, namely class action law suits, patent/copyright infringement, and most importantly the drug war.

Short of the Supremes, courts in the US cannot refuse to hear cases brought to the bar.

 

[Constance]

Defamation cases are very difficult to prove, especially if there is any semblance of Truth behind the defamatory statement or the underlying factual isue is difficult to prove (i.e. extraterrestrial contact). While I have never had a defamation case myself, several of my Colleagues have and each one has faced their fair share of evidentiary hurdles.

No doubt. But this one would be worth trying.

 

[AlienEsq]

No doubt. But this one would be worth trying.

May I ask why you believe this would be an easy case?

The United States Supreme Court has defined "constitutional defamation" as the making of a defamatory statement, of or concerning the Plaintiff, causing actual damage to the Plaintiff's name or reputation, in which the Plaintiff can also prove both falsity and fault. Falsity is easily understood as the untruthful Ness of the Defendant's statement. Fault is determined by a showing that the Defendant either knew the statement was false and published it anyway or had a reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.

The largest issue I see in proving both falsity and fault is that, although the Defendant's statement may have been reckless in nature, a Plaintiff like Travis Woods will have a tough time proving falsity of the Defendant's statement. Travis would essentially need to put his story on trial and have a jury conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the his story is true. That's simply a tough call at this point, regardless of what anyone here believes withat regard to his story.

I believe Travis Walton, but getting a group of 12 strangers to believe him seems inherently difficult, particularly if they are not predisposed to do so.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

None of this matters really , does it? What matters here is to what degree people have misrepresented his case and on a private note , the examples he gives that show how people have done some real bizarre crap with his story. His kids have been affected, people have pretended to be his wife and even him. The other part, which I don't completely understand just yet but has me shaking my head is the media and separately the sheriff. The media really jumped on him. If true, one media guy tried to get him to take a physical with someone that wasn't even registered to practice in Arizona. Everyone started waving money at him from the get go for full rights to the story. This guys not that old at this point. He's only 22. What did we all know at 22? Add in this one other factor, the sheriff clearly did not accept his story nor the other guys. He gave up the search several days in. And honestly, what could the sheriff do. It was a bizarre story. The reason why Travis Walton has some credibility with some folks is that he's said the same story all these years. So have the other guys. People who lie tend to embellish the original. They tend to have more sightings greater that the last. They don't get people from their home town describing them as a good honest guy with nice kids.

 

[Randall]

I take his case very seriously and find him very credible. Unlike lie detector tests.

Even Walton said they're accurate 97% of the time.

 

[AlienEsq]

None of this matters really , does it? What matters here is to what degree people have misrepresented his case and on a private note , the examples he gives that show how people have done some real bizarre crap with his story. His kids have been affected, people have pretended to be his wife and even him. The other part, which I don't completely understand just yet but has me shaking my head is the media and separately the sheriff. The media really jumped on him. If true, one media guy tried to get him to take a physical with someone that wasn't even registered to practice in Arizona. Everyone started waving money at him from the get go for full rights to the story. This guys not that old at this point. He's only 22. What did we all know at 22? Add in this one other factor, the sheriff clearly did not accept his story nor the other guys. He gave up the search several days in. And honestly, what could the sheriff do. It was a bizarre story. The reason why Travis Walton has some credibility with some folks is that he's said the same story all these years. So have the other guys. People who lie tend to embellish the original. They tend to have more sightings greater that the last. They don't get people from their home town describing them as a good honest guy with nice kids.

If the argument is that the misrepresentations made about Travis Walton's story caused an ascertainable loss and, therefore, a legal remedy is appropriate, then the case needs to be proven in open court. Otherwise, it's simply an individual exercising his or het First Amendment rights.

I agree with you that, from a moral standpoint, the misrepresentation of Walton's story is inherently wrong; however, there is next to nothing he can do about it in the eyes of the law.

 

[Randall]

When you are a public figure, proving defamation can be difficult, unless you can show substantial harm, financially or otherwise, as the result. I have a few people I'd love to go after, of course.

Let's also not forget that for a libel suit to succeed, what is said to be libelous also has to be demonstrably false, unambiguously aimed at the complainant, and depending on where you are, may also have to demonstrate clear intent. Simply stating facts and opinions will not result in a favorable decision by the courts. There are however people who when criticized use frivolous lawsuits to silence their critics. A typical frivolous lawsuit costs a minimum of around $25,000 to fight and ties up your opponent in court. Fortunately the laws are changing to prevent retaliation by frivolous lawsuit: How can I oppose a frivolous lawsuit?

 

[Constance]

May I ask why you believe this would be an easy case?

The United States Supreme Court has defined "constitutional defamation" as the making of a defamatory statement, of or concerning the Plaintiff, causing actual damage to the Plaintiff's name or reputation, in which the Plaintiff can also prove both falsity and fault. Falsity is easily understood as the untruthful Ness of the Defendant's statement. Fault is determined by a showing that the Defendant either knew the statement was false and published it anyway or had a reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.

All of the above seems to be already established in what TW has written about the acts of defamation, misrepresentation, and lies and the citations he has gathered to the sources that published them (some internet sites, some printed publications). He has witnesses to all of this who can corroborate the items in his complaint and the damages thereby done to his reputation, privacy, peace of mind, and well being. No doubt also to his health.

The largest issue I see in proving both falsity and fault is that, although the Defendant's statement may have been reckless in nature, a Plaintiff like Travis Woods [? Walton] will have a tough time proving falsity of the Defendant's statement.

Clearly not for many or most of the falsifications (including imposture: the persons who impersonated him and his wife certainly were aware of what they were doing), as the material Heidi quoted shows.

Travis would essentially need to put his story on trial and have a jury conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the his story is true. That's simply a tough call at this point, regardless of what anyone here believes withat regard to his story.

That's true to a certain extent. Depending on the prejudices of the jury, the case might fail. But merely having it heard and publicized would break through the barrier of consensual thinking about this subject. Also, his attorney would need to clarify at the outset and remind the jury when necessary at points during the trial that the case at the bar concerns, not the current verifiability of TW's anomalous experience, but the subsequent defamation of his character with consequent damages to him and his family. I actually think enough people are by now sufficiently open-minded about the possibility of et visitation to this planet (and perhaps even about abduction experiences) to be willing to listen. And of course the jury, like the judge, would have no choice but to listen, and the public would be listening too. It would be another step toward disclosure.

The case might be lost, but increased legitimacy for the ufo subject would be won.

 

[Constance]

Let's also not forget that for a libel suit to succeed, what is said to be libelous also has to be demonstrably false, unambiguously aimed at the complainant, and depending on where you are, may also have to demonstrate clear intent. Simply stating facts and opinions will not result in a favorable decision by the courts. There are however people who when criticized use frivolous lawsuits to silence their critics. A typical frivolous lawsuit costs a minimum of around $25,000 to fight and ties up your opponent in court. Fortunately the laws are changing to prevent retaliation by frivolous lawsuit: How can I oppose a frivolous lawsuit?

This would not be a frivolous lawsuit, and the lie detector tests would not be a significant issue in it. TW's attorney probably would not include remarks about those as slander in the first place. If the issue were raised by the defense, all TW's attorney needs to do is point out that such tests are not accepted in courts of law because they are not considered reliable evidence. Thus failing three out of 16 machts nichts anyway.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Also interesting: http://www.ufocasebook.com/Walton2.html
In my own research for these articles, I have searched through literally hundreds of reports, both pro and con. It is amazing that even some of the larger, more reputable movie and book review sites (not naming names), don't even have some of the basic facts of the case correct. I have seen different numbers of crewmen listed, anywhere from 3-7, when the actual police report lists all 7 men (including Walton) with their names, addresses, etc. This is only one area of misinformation. Taking into account all of the information available at this time, there are some facts of the case which are irrefutable;

1) Despite allegations of a hoax by many, NO ONE has brought forth any proof to substantiate their claims.

2) Despite a massive search by approximately 50 volunteers aided by dogs and helicopters, NO physical trace of Travis Walton was found during the 5 days of his disappearance.

3) During the 25 years since the case began, not ONE person has brought forth any information indicating where Travis was, or even alleged a possible sighting of him during the five days.

4) Law enforcement officials, though claiming hoax all the while, never presented ANY evidence to put a dent in one of the crewmen's statements, which remain the same to this day.

5) From a theoretical standpoint, it is highly unlikely that 7 men, common everyday working men, could put together an elaborate hoax, pass lie-detector tests, stand up to questioning, and stick to the same incredible story for a quarter of a century, without a break. The stress of the investigation caused personal problems among the men, yet they still stuck to their stories.

6) Though Walton did receive money for his story, it was not until many years later that he gained financially from it. Reviewing all the facts presented to date, it is also advisable to mention that it is easier to prove that something happened, than to prove that it didn't. It is also very easy to simply yell "Hoax," without tenable proof.

However, in the shadow of all of the crewmen's statements to date, it is fair to say that something very extraordinary and unusual did happen on November 5th, 1975 in the remote forests of Arizona. The Travis Walton Story, "Fire In The Sky," remains one of the most intriguing reports of UFO abduction today.

"It was many years ago that I got out of a crew truck in the national forest and ran toward a large glowing UFO hovering in the darkening Arizona sky. But when I made that fateful choice to leave the truck, I was leaving behind more than just my six fellow workmen. I was leaving behind forever all semblance of a normal life, running headlong toward an experience so overwhelmingly mind-rending in it's effects, so devastating in its aftermath, that my life would never - could never - be the same again." (Travis Walton)

(B J Booth)

 

[Randall]

This would not be a frivolous lawsuit, and the lie detector tests would not be a significant issue in it. TW's attorney probably would not include remarks about those as slander in the first place. If the issue were raised by the state, all TW's attorney needs to do is point out that such tests are not accepted in courts of law because they are considered reliable evidence. Thus failing three out of 16 machts nichts anyway.

I'm not sure what specifics you think Walton would include in his statement of damages that are relevant. In order to claim substantial damages, he would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt substantial losses, which in and of itself would be contradictory to the statements he's made that suggest he lives a very modest lifestyle. Besides, I was just responding to the issue in general, not Walton in particular.

 

[Constance]

I'm not sure what specifics you think Walton would include in his statement of damages that are relevant. In order to claim substantial damages, he would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt substantial losses, which in and of itself would be contradictory to the statements he's made that suggest he lives a very modest lifestyle. Besides, I was just responding to the issue in general, not Walton in particular.

There's ever so much more to life than wealth, ufology. Do you really think the only way a person can be harmed is financially?

 

[Wade]

Although not an especially important point in his interview I question his summation that it shouldn't come as a surprise to us that any visitors coming from other planets wouldn't be similar in form to us.

As Travis noted there are many other life forms on this planet alone, some which can be said to be just as successful as us in adapting to the enviornment. In the case of planet earth, the consensus is that the apes are the ones who exceeded beyond all others anf begat us humans.

But it would stand to reason that all these earth like planets out there also play host to multiple life forms, and is it so unusual to think that on one of these many worlds another quadipedal creature would evolve to stand upright and build condos and nuclear weapons?

Perhaps somewhere along the line it is a necessity that this life form would have to become upright and bipedal and form societies and become thinking conscious beings in order to progress to the point where they could become interstellar travelers but it seems to me there should be more deviation from human like beings or lizard like beings if they truly were from other realms.

On this planet we do have the frilled lizard which has been spotted running on it's hind legs which could be a step towards becoming a bipedal life form which seems to be a prerequisite towards becoming a more dominant life form. What if a branch of them achieved that eons ago here on earth and are responsible for those reptilian reports you hear about and they ventured forth millenia ago and drop in from time to time to visit theit old digs.

 

[Randall]

Also interesting: ... there are some facts of the case which are irrefutable;

1) Despite allegations of a hoax by many, NO ONE has brought forth any proof to substantiate their claims.

Failing to prove a case is a hoax is not proof that it's true.

2) Despite a massive search by approximately 50 volunteers aided by dogs and helicopters, NO physical trace of Travis Walton was found during the 5 days of his disappearance.

A search assumes a person wants to be found. If it was a hoax, then a planned hiding place could have prevented his discovery.

3) During the 25 years since the case began, not ONE person has brought forth any information indicating where Travis was, or even alleged a possible sighting of him during the five days.

Have a look at the claim on this page: UFO Media Matters: Sherrif’s nephew claims Travis Walton Hoax well known?

4) Law enforcement officials, though claiming hoax all the while, never presented ANY evidence to put a dent in one of the crewmen's statements, which remain the same to this day.

Sticking to a story doesn't prove that it's true.

5) From a theoretical standpoint, it is highly unlikely that 7 men, common everyday working men, could put together an elaborate hoax, pass lie-detector tests, stand up to questioning, and stick to the same incredible story for a quarter of a century, without a break. The stress of the investigation caused personal problems among the men, yet they still stuck to their stories.

If it was a hoax, it wasn't all that elaborate. It's composed simply of unproven claims. No faked photos or film. No trace evidence, and again, sticking to a story doesn't prove that it's true.

6) Though Walton did receive money for his story, it was not until many years later that he gained financially from it. Reviewing all the facts presented to date, it is also advisable to mention that it is easier to prove that something happened, than to prove that it didn't. It is also very easy to simply yell "Hoax," without tenable proof.

To be clear, I haven't yelled hoax. I think that unless a hoax has been proven, then it's not responsible to claim something is a hoax. However at the same time, not being 100% certain it was a hoax isn't sufficient reason to assume that the story is true either. Therefore I insufficient reason to believe the story combined with a number of credibility issues that tend to be ignored by the believers. So while it's possible that Walton is telling the truth, I simply don't believe he was abducted by aliens.

However, in the shadow of all of the crewmen's statements to date, it is fair to say that something very extraordinary and unusual did happen on November 5th, 1975 in the remote forests of Arizona. The Travis Walton Story, "Fire In The Sky," remains one of the most intriguing reports of UFO abduction today.

It's equally fair to say that the lack of evidence at the site of Walton's disappearance, and the lack of evidence brought back by Walton himself makes it equally fair to say that nothing extraordinary happened.

"It was many years ago that I got out of a crew truck in the national forest and ran toward a large glowing UFO hovering in the darkening Arizona sky. But when I made that fateful choice to leave the truck, I was leaving behind more than just my six fellow workmen. I was leaving behind forever all semblance of a normal life, running headlong toward an experience so overwhelmingly mind-rending in it's effects, so devastating in its aftermath, that my life would never - could never - be the same again." (Travis Walton)
(B J Booth)

Our reaction to the above requires us to assume his story is true and accurate. We don't know that, and therefore, although it has an element of drama, the statement has no value except to Walton and those who believe his story.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Well so much for, "separating the signal from the noise". This show was basically one long infomercial for Walton's Skyfire Summit event, plus the show's standard commercials thrown in for variety...Anyone who takes the time to do any digging can find a number of other problems, so I'm not going to write a whole book about it here. Suffice it to say that the level of credibility that the Paracast seemed to grant Walton was more than can be substantiated, and there was a noticeable absence of probing questions. IMO this was a new low for the Paracast. I wonder how much of the show's softballing may have been compromise just to get Walton to appear?

Randall: you are entitled to your pontifications and opinions about me and the show, and as usual, you wear down forum readers with your overwritten verbiage. However, I must tell you that your 'holier-than-thou' attitude is really wearing thin with me and others. Since you have such a sniffy and exalted opinion of yourself, why don't you start your own damn podcast and dazzle the world with your opinionated brand of brilliance? I'm sure many here would welcome your 'take-no-prisoners' approach and ditch our show in favor of yours. Your insinuation that we "may have compromised just to get Walton on the show" is insulting and absolutely not true and I'm not amused. It seems that it doesn't matter what we do, you have a problem with it—it's sad really...